Wind Farms, Yes or No?

[VictorII]

Oh and has anyone tried calculating the cost of building, maintaining and scrapping nuclear reactors? Has anyone ever taken one apart? The main reason no NPP get built anymore is mainly to do with cost of lifecycle. Storing entire nuclear reactors in a safe way for 10000 years could be regarded slightly off-putting.
This is why usually states foot the bill. Hardly economical, is it?

 

[DJE]

Has anyone ever taken one apart?

Calder Hall and Dounreay are both well on the way. Has anyone ever calculated the full cost of burning coal and oil?

 

[Ubergeekian]

Oh and has anyone tried calculating the cost of building, maintaining and scrapping nuclear reactors? Has anyone ever taken one apart? The main reason no NPP get built anymore is mainly to do with cost of lifecycle. Storing entire nuclear reactors in a safe way for 10000 years could be regarded slightly off-putting.
This is why usually states foot the bill. Hardly economical, is it?

The energy cost of building is about the same as a coal fired station - 6 months or so. In money they are more expensive, because nuclear stuff just is, but not vastly so. Loads of reactors have come to the end of their lives: no need to store them for 10,000 years but storing them for fifty or so is entirely sensible as it allows all the nasties to decay. Same with spent fuel: no sense in reprocessing them when they're hot when fifty years in a water tank gives you something much easier to deal with.

 

[Searush]

And after 50 years that water is ????

I seem to remember significant contamination of the Irish east coast following discharge of cooling water from Windscale/ Seascale/ Sellafield or whatever they have changed the name to most recently.

Also disadvantages of Nuclear Energy (from, http://www.darvill.clara.net/altenerg/nuclear.htm a GCSE reference study of different energy options)

Although not much waste is produced, it is very, very dangerous.
It must be sealed up and buried for many thousands of years to allow the radioactivity to die away.
For all that time it must be kept safe from earthquakes, flooding, terrorists and everything else. This is difficult.

 

[Bishop Terrorchoke]

The energy cost of building is about the same as a coal fired station - 6 months or so. In money they are more expensive, because nuclear stuff just is, but not vastly so.

No nuclear power station in the UK has ever been built to budget or on time. The latest 'third generation' station under construction in Finland is currenty at least three and a half years behind schedule and more than 50 percent over-budget. The only sensible justification for the construction of new nuclear plants is the relatively low carbon footprint of nuclear electricity. Sadly the government has probably dithered too long to get new nuclear power online in time to keep the lights on in the UK from 2017 onwards.

BishopT

 

[Ubergeekian]

And after 50 years that water is ????

A liitle warmer than it would have been otherwise, and with a little more deuterium and tritium than usual

Also disadvantages of Nuclear Energy (from, http://www.darvill.clara.net/altenerg/nuclear.htm a GCSE reference study of different energy options)

It's amazing how many people are confused about this, and GCSE textbooks are no exception. Basically, if it's radioactive for many thousands of years then it's not very active and if it's very active then it won;t be so for very long.

Of course it's not terribly nice stuff, but the really nasty bits have a half life of at most a few years - after fifty years (say 10 - 20 half lives) it's fairly tame.

 

[Ubergeekian]

No nuclear power station in the UK has ever been built to budget or on time. The latest 'third generation' station under construction in Finland is currenty at least three and a half years behind schedule and more than 50 percent over-budget.

One of the problems has been a tendency to design each system from scratch. We're going to need lots of nuclear stations, so the new policy of preapproving a couple of standard designs sounds very sensible - not least because it will save wasting huge amounts of time and money on repeated challenges from the treehuggers.

 

[Bishop Terrorchoke]

EPR reactors

One of the problems has been a tendency to design each system from scratch. We're going to need lots of nuclear stations, so the new policy of preapproving a couple of standard designs sounds very sensible - not least because it will save wasting huge amounts of time and money on repeated challenges from the treehuggers.

I believe the standard design we intend to approve is the EPR, the same as the Finnish project I mentioned. Its modular design was supposed to make it faster and cheaper to build, but this has not turned out to be the case. A reactor of the same type is being built in France (started Dec 2007) and it is already over budget and behind schedule.

The UK regulator said last month that they are unable to approve this type of reactor at the moment because of safety issues. This has thrown the government's nuclear timetable even further into doubt.

BishopT

 

[TheCrimsonVicar]

Hi BishT

Welcome.
You seem a bit of an expert on these matters.
Any views on tidal power generation, in particular wee thingies which lie on the sea bed?
Also, I'm puzzled a bit. Now that the MMGW evidence has been discredited as either false or manipulated why don't we just built more coal fired power stations? Cheap and plentiful. Makes sense.

 

[Searush]

Welcome.
(snip)
Also, I'm puzzled a bit. Now that the MMGW evidence has been discredited as either false or manipulated why don't we just built more coal fired power stations? Cheap and plentiful. Makes sense.

You only only believe what you want to believe don't you? I understand many journos have seized on the stolen e-mail discussions, but they are only that, discussions - NOTHING has actually been discredited.

All papers are published for peer discusion, that's how science works. Results must be repeatable & if possible, explainable. That's what happens. Or could believe the Daily Mail.

 

[TheCrimsonVicar]

You only only believe what you want to believe don't you?

Yes.
Don't you?
Is there anything which you believe which you don't want to believe?

 

[roger]

They make useful navigational aids

You can often see them poking out of thin layres of mist. Going from Sweden to Finland there is a very tall group of Wind turbines that show the southern tip of the main island (one with Mariehamn on it). The turbines are much bigger than the local lighthouse.
It has also been suggeted that a group of turbines gives a useful lee in a gale.

 

[Bishop Terrorchoke]

Welcome.
You seem a bit of an expert on these matters.
Any views on tidal power generation, in particular wee thingies which lie on the sea bed?
Also, I'm puzzled a bit. Now that the MMGW evidence has been discredited as either false or manipulated why don't we just built more coal fired power stations? Cheap and plentiful. Makes sense.

Bless you for the welcome Vicar - always nice to meet ones deputies.

I have a little knowledge about nuclear power because they once built one very close to me so I took it upon myself to find out about it rather than fall into the sin of mindless Nimbyism. The problems with the Finnish EPR have been fairly well publicised, but the French have managed to keep more of a lid on the problems with their new EPR. This is only to be expected as the French are very practised in nuclear public relations.

I have no real knowledge of tidal electricity generation except for La Rance and so do not feel qualified to express a view - why do you ask?

I note that you think anthropogenic global warming as a theory has been discredited, presumably because of the 'leak' from UEA. I think you are perhaps a little premature, and in any event I don't think there is any public appetite for new coal fired stations unless it is 'clean coal', which is according to popular accounting methods currently considerably more expensive per MW than nuclear. The pollution from conventional coal fired stations was getting a bad press before all the fuss about CO2 hit the headlines.

BishopT

 

[Bishop Terrorchoke]

It has also been suggeted that a group of turbines gives a useful lee in a gale.

Now that's more interesting than all this talk of nuclear power and similar non-nautical matters. I have always suspected that this (the lee effect) would be the case. Has anyone here had any practical experience of this, and how far downwind would the lee extend?

BishopT

 

[gandy]

Is there anything which you believe which you don't want to believe?

I don't want to be believe about Global Warming. Life would be much easier if we could continue consuming and emitting as we do now.

 

[Searush]

Yes.
Don't you?
Is there anything which you believe which you don't want to believe?

There many unpleasant truths that I would prefer not to believe. But I have learnt that it is better to face up to the facts rather than expect that living in "Cloud Cuckoo land" will offer me any satisfactory protection.

 

[Robin]

There many unpleasant truths that I would prefer not to believe. But I have learnt that it is better to face up to the facts rather than expect that living in "Cloud Cuckoo land" will offer me any satisfactory protection.

On that basis then you would be looking at learning to LIVE with climate change instead of trying to fight a losing battle that may very well be an irrelevant one anyway. Cloud cuckoo land is in thinking that a reduction of 20% in our 2% that will be taken up in 3 nanoseconds by the likes of China and India will make even 1% of difference. By all means don't pollute the planet or waste it's resources, that is laudable, but do it for that reason and not some pseudo religion that waves windmills in the air like battle flags.

 

[dk]

Just a thought - if the polar ice caps are indeed melting, they must shortly reveal lots of land - into which we could plant thick forests to soak up all the nasty CO2 we are producing.

2nd thought - if it's getting hotter then surely much of the extra water created by the melting ice caps will be evaporated. Might, with luck and new technology, even be able to get it then to drop on the deserts of Africa etc.

 

[DJE]

Just a thought - if the polar ice caps are indeed melting, they must shortly reveal lots of land - into which we could plant thick forests to soak up all the nasty CO2 we are producing.

2nd thought - if it's getting hotter then surely much of the extra water created by the melting ice caps will be evaporated. Might, with luck and new technology, even be able to get it then to drop on the deserts of Africa etc.

Land yes but unless it gets a great deal warmer it will all be well North (or South in Antarctica) of the timberline.

 

[gandy]

I saw an interesting comment from one of the windfarm consultants. According to his figures which were dated from June 2008 if you add up all wind power in service (3,625MW), under construction (850MW) and consented (3,067MW) then that comes to 5% of the UK demand (assuming 30% return). Elsewhere the document suggested that you could contribute up to 10% without too many problems in the grid.

I wonder what that figures would be now? A lot of turbines have gone up since then, and a lot more entered planning. It seems likely that we could soon be hitting that 10%.